The Scottish MPAs

Scotland’s MPA network consists of 47 SACs, 45 SPAs, and 61 SSSIs, covering approximately 20% of the Scottish seas. Thirty MPAs were designated in August 2014, to protect benthic species and habitats. Of these, 17 fall under the Marine (Scotland) Act for inshore waters and 13 under the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act for offshore waters (Scottish Government 2016b). The Scottish Government’s Guidelines on the selection of

MPAs and development of the MPA network (2011) also notes the international

commitments, such as the OSPAR Convention, the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), as well as the plan to complement sites designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives, Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The aim of the MPA network is to support the natural biodiversity and geodiversity features. While wilderness is not referred to, the document notes the following:

One way of prioritising suitable search locations for MPAs is to consider areas that are least damaged by activities. On the assumption that least damaged/more natural areas occur in areas of least activity, the guidelines for Nature Conservation MPAs will be applied to these areas first, before applying them more widely (The Scottish Government, 2011, p. 26).

166

As for human benefits, the Demonstration & Research MPAs are to ‘be developed for the purpose of demonstrating, or carrying out research on sustainable methods of marine management or exploitation in territorial waters’ (The Scottish Government, 2011, p. 28). The objective for historic MPAs is ‘to help preserve our most important marine historic assets and to celebrate and communicate their heritage value so that everyone can appreciate these assets and act responsibly’ (The Scottish Government, 2011, p. 31). They are said to have ‘intrinsic, associative and contextual significance in relation to cultural and social values’ aside from potential conservation value (The Scottish Government, 2011, p. 32).

Stakeholder engagement is to be undertaken throughout the process of assigning new MPAs. The listed stakeholders include marine interests and organisations, local authorities, nearby communities, and users ‘from a wider geographic area, such as recreational interests’. Discussions, provisions of updates, and awareness raising have all been mentioned as important (The Scottish Government 2011, p.32). As for the management of the MPAs after designation, it is stated that:

Stakeholders will have an important role in influencing site management. A range of management measures, including the use of voluntary options, may be available. These will be explored with stakeholders and consulted upon prior to decisions being reached. Socio-economic factors will be considered and Impact assessments will be used as a mechanism to help inform the decision-making process (The Scottish Government, 2011, p. 40).

Marine Scotland’s Report to the Scottish Parliament on Progress to Identify a Scottish

167

seas as a reason for the development of the MPA network, but also notes that the seas are important for Scottish food and energy needs, industries, and recreation and eco-tourism (Marine Scotland, 2012, p. 6). In addition:

Scotland’s coasts and seas also preserve a rich cultural heritage dating from early prehistory to the recent past including remains of coastal settlement (submerged landscapes) and thousands of wrecks of ships and aircraft. The marine cultural heritage helps us to appreciate the importance of our coasts and seas throughout Scotland’s history, contributes to our sense of place and wellbeing, enhances the distinctiveness of coastal areas and helps attract visitors to Scotland (Marine Scotland, 2012, p. 7).

Visiting charismatic species in the wild and the economic benefits of wildlife tourism are specially mentioned, as are the non-use benefits, ‘protecting places simply to know that they are there to be enjoyed enriches us all’ (Marine Scotland, 2012, p. 9). The document also emphasises that the MPAs will not be no-take zones, but rather managed under the principle of sustainable use (Marine Scotland, 2012, p. 37).

JNCC report on designations (JNCC, 2014a) notes that Marine Scotland led five national stakeholder workshops to discuss the data on marine features and activities. Regular update meetings have been held, and 56 public consultation events took place in the autumn of 2013. JNCC Report No. 518 (2014b) advices on the scientific questions raised in relation to offshore waters during the Marine Scotland consultation, while the SNH’s Commissioned Report No. 747 (2014b) does the same on the inshore areas.

The new Scottish MPA network is an example of a present-day marine conservation project that does not utilise the wilderness concept. While the social benefits are

168

acknowledged, the basis of MPA definitions is primarily biological and geological. Stakeholder participation appears to be a significant part the process, as required by the relevant legislation, yet as mentioned above, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation expressed anger and disappointment after the announcement of 11 inshore MPAs and nine SPAs in June 2015. An open letter to the Cabinet Secretary states:

You will recall that the process was heavy with consultation… We regarded the participation of the fishing industry as essential and set about providing it. We made one of the most significant input streams to the project, having recognised the importance to us of proper environmental protection and the potential harm to sustainable use that could result from information gaps or mishandling in the decision- making… Given the background and work to date and the reasonable Marine Scotland document delivering the consultation on designation, the Federation and more specifically several member associations were astonished by the decisions taken by you…Several sites in this first tranche bear little or no resemblance to the process which preceded your decisions (Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, 2015b).

In July 2016, SNH began a consultation on ten new Marine SPAs, to protect habitats for various seabird species around Scotland (Scottish Government, 2016a).

5.4. EU legislation

The EU documents were collected from the EUR-Lex database. The word wilderness first appears in EU documents in 1980. In the written question No 1404/80 by the Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Mr. Muntingh asks the Commission about European corporations and the Commission owning land and possibly being involved in the clearance of the Amazon jungle. He cites previous incidents between “Indian tribes” and agricultural workers, noting that ‘[t]hese incidents have arisen because the border between

169

“civilization” and the wilderness is moving steadily westwards and beginning to reach the last remaining areas where Indians still live in isolation’ (Written question No 1404/80). The first reference to marine wilderness shows up two years later, in the European Parliament Minutes of proceedings of the sitting of Thursday, 17 June, discussing the

Council resolution on the continuation and implementation of a European Community policy and action programme on the environment.

The Commission will examine the legislation already introduced by several Member States regarding deep-seabed mining in anticipation of the final outcome of UNCLOS and will if necessary make proposals for a Community deepseabed mining regime which gives proper weight to environmental considerations and to the need to maintain and safeguard this concept of marine wildernesses (European Parliament, 1982, p. 101).

The Commission amended draft resolution of the Council of the European Communities

and of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on the continuation and implementation of a European Community policy and action programme on the environment later in the same year uses the following wording:

The Commission will examine the legislation already introduced by several Member States regarding deep-seabed mining and will, if necessary, make proposals for a Community deep-seabed mining regime which gives proper weight to environmental considerations and to the need to safeguard the marine wilderness (European Commission, 1982, p. 16).

The latter wording is then used in the finalized Council resolution on the continuation and

implementation of a European Community policy and action programme on the environment (1982 to 1986), published in 1983.

170 Proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (COM(88) 381 final) brings the wilderness areas into

discussion, considering the potential necessity ‘to take initiatives to promote common or coordinated management of trans-frontier areas of major importance for the conservation of threatened species of wild fauna and flora and the maintenance of wilderness areas’ (COM(88) 381 final, recitals), and therefore states that the Member States ‘shall assist the Commission in promoting… the maintenance of wilderness areas throughout the Community’ (COM(88) 381 final, Art. 9).

The written questions from MEPs to the Commission often raise the question of specific wilderness regions, inside and outside the Union. Mr Muntingh asks the Commission about the dredging of the River Boro in Botswana, with Mr Marin responding to him that the Commission is waiting for the results of a study of the possible environmental consequences, and that ‘[u]nder the new Lome Convention, [the Commission] expects to play an ever-increasing role in matters of protection of the environment and preservation of the wilderness, already an important sector of its activities’ (Written question No 327/91). Amendola, Raffin and Bettini ask the Commission about community funding in Eastern European countries’ nature conservation projects. In the response, it is noted that ‘[a]n adviser on eco-tourism has been seconded to the Albanian government to help develop environmentally favourable tourism which will protect the rich heritage of unspoilt wilderness and wildlife’ (Written question No 3105/92). Gonzáles Álvarez queries about the proposed Oropesa-Cabanes road link in Spain, which she says would have a negative effect on the nearby El Desierto de Las Palmas wilderness area (Written question E-2863/99). Pohjamo and Pesälä bring up the EU Habitats Directive’s ‘alarming’ effect on predator populations, endangering reindeer farming in Finland. It is noted that ‘Reindeer

171

husbandry and herding are not directly comparable to farming. Reindeer graze freely in a vast wilderness’, and the MEPs ask whether the Union is accepting the potential destruction of the traditional business, or if hunting licences could be issued by ‘more flexible accelerated procedures’. In its response, the Commission representative notes that there is no evidence supporting the claims of increasing predator population sizes (Written question E-2180/03). Essentially the same question is asked by Virrankoski, this time emphasizing the risk to livestock in general, as well as children (Written question P- 4034/03). Meijer asks about the situation of the Iberian lynx, asking whether the Commission is ‘aware that, according to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, which has in the past worked to secure the survival of the lynx in this area with the support of the Commission, the adjoining land which has been expropriated and which was intended as a wilderness to provide compensation for the lost area is totally unsuitable as lynx habitat’ (Written question E-3650/03). Korhola refers to the Message from Prague, noting that ‘Europe is the only continent which has managed to pull together an agenda for enhancing wilderness protection’. She also asks what the Commission intends to do ‘in order to quantify the value of the non-extractive economic, social and environmental benefits of wilderness’ as recommended by the Message, as well as how the areas will be identified and promoted, considering that no extraction can be allowed by definition. In his response, the Commission representative states that ‘interconnections between Wilderness and Natura 2000 are being addressed in Commission Guidelines for the management of

wilderness and wild areas in Natura 2000 that are being finalized’ at the time of the

response. In addition, ‘the Commission is furthermore developing actions for the establishment of a Register of Wilderness areas in Europe’ (Question for written answer E- 005329/12). Poc also refers to the EP resolution, requesting the Commission to specify progress in relation to mapping of wilderness areas, producing a report on their value and benefits, the effective protection, funding of wilderness areas, and publication of final

172

guidelines for wilderness areas. The Commission representative notes that a number of initiatives are being undertaken as a follow-up to the resolution, and that many of the issues will be covered by Natura 2000. However, ‘[n]o specific allocation is foreseen for wilderness or any other management category under Natura 2000 as the selection of projects is ultimately determined by their quality and contribution to Natura 2000 and broader biodiversity goals’ (Question for written answer E-005398/13). Miranda and Meyer suggest that a hydroelectric dam project in Chile, which intends to ‘build five hydroelectric dams on the Pascua and Baker rivers in Chilean Patagonia… could well endanger one of the world’s last regions of unspoiled wilderness’ (Question for written answer E-006789/12).

Special features of particular Member States come up in other types of documents as well. A report on structural funds discusses sustainable development, noting that the area of northern Sweden and northern Finland ‘is recognized as one of the last natural wildernesses left in Europe in an almost pristine state’ (COM(96) 502 final, p.116). In a similar vein, Committee of the Regions notes in its opinion on the Commission’s Northern

dimension for the policies of the Union that

[With the accession of Finland and Sweden] the EU gained a completely new northern coniferous forest belt, a region in which reforestation and sustainable use have been a pillar of both the regional and national economy. These regions are also home to Western Europe’s last areas of wilderness, the recreational value of which is considerable for Europe as a whole (Committee of the Regions, 1999, p. 3).

A Commission staff working document related to EU strategy for the Danube region notes that:

173 The natural heritage of the Danube region is of European importance. The region contains a large share of Europe’s remaining great wilderness areas, as well as rich cultural landscapes. The Danube and its tributaries are vital to the wildlife ecosystems and indeed provide ecological connections that are essential for overall European environmental health (SEC(2010) 1489 final, p.48).

Action brought on November 30th _{2001 by Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro against}

Commission of the European Communities debates the high speed Madrid-Zaragoza- French Border railway line, funded by the Community cohesion fund. According to the case:

Initially, the Spanish administrative authorities approved the route for Subsection II of the Zaragoza-Lleida section, which opted, from the two possible choices at the Source of the Ebro, for the ‘Northern Option’, which did not affect the protected area of the Soto de Aguilar, a riverside wilderness of great ecological and wildlife value within the municipality limits of the applicant. Subsequently… the Spanish Government decided to alter the route initially planned, opting for Solucio n Sur Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B), which not only is the less environmentally friendly but is also the more expensive (Case T-303/01).

The polar wilderness is discussed in Minutes of proceedings of the sitting of Friday 18

September 1987, which notes a discussion on ‘Resolution on the protection of the

environment and wildlife in Antarctica’. It considers ‘the immense importance of the Antarctic as the last great wilderness on earth’ (European Parliament, 1987, p. 193), believes that there is ‘an urgent need for an “Antarctic Conservation Strategy” which would deal with wilderness values and the ecosystem as a whole, and protect and manage

174

Antarctica as an entity’ (European Parliament, 1987, p. 194), and calls for an initiation for such a strategy, to involve as one of the basic principles ‘that complete protection for the wildlife of the Antarctic should be ensured, and that the Antarctic's wilderness values should be a primary consideration’ (European Parliament, 1987, p. 195).

Communication from the Commission to the Council on Energy and the Environment

(COM (89) 369 final) lists environmental effects of the energy sector, noting that one of the effects of coal on wild life is ‘exploitation of wilderness or natural areas for surface mining’ (COM(89) 369 final, 7A).

The Rio de Janeiro Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 is discussed in two documents, proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Convention

on Biological Diversity, as well as the actual finalised Council decision, both listing in the Identification and Monitoring Annex:

Ecosystems and habitats: containing high diversity, large numbers of endemic or threatened species, or wilderness; required by migratory species; of social, economic, cultural or scientific importance; or, which are representative, unique or associated with key evolutionary or other biological processes (93/626/EEC; COM(92)509 final).

‘A new type of citizenship’ is introduced by Opinion of the Committee of the Regions —

Green infrastructure — enhancing Europe’s natural capital as one of the ‘human,

technical and financial resources’ to meet the challenges of supporting the natural capital

[A new type of citizenship] notes the considerable social demand for natural areas in urban environments, which is just as much a response to the need for green areas in their

175 various forms (leisure and recreation areas, areas dedicated to gardening and agriculture, landscaping and embellishment features, wilderness areas etc.) as to the sense of well- being they bring, as well as to public health issues, combating economic and social inequalities; these needs must be met for the sake not only of young people, but also of older or disadvantaged people (Committee of the Regions, 2013, p. 46).

There are two references to the symbolical meaning of wilderness: The White Paper on Education and Training lists ‘being out in the wilderness’ with ‘having a cross to bear’, ‘Eureka’, ‘the tower of Babel’, and ‘the judgment of Solomon’ as examples of expressions which lose their meaning if the history of European civilisation is not properly taught (COM(95) 590 final, p.12). MEP Filip Kaczmarek quotes Amnesty international, which has referred to the Pakistani human rights situation as ‘a legal wilderness’ (Question for written answer E-011530/12, 2013, p. 634).

The European Parliament’s wilderness resolution (2008/2210(INI)) is, as has been mentioned, the Union’s main wilderness document. Its aim is a wilderness strategy that is coherent with the Habitats and Birds Directives, and uses an ecosystem approach. It supports management of re-wilding areas, compensation mechanisms, and raising awareness of wilderness development and benefits. It emphasises the need for cooperation with locals and stakeholders, and for ensuring that the impacts of tourism are minimised. It further calls on the Commission to accept the Wild Europe Initiative, and to develop guidelines on how to protect and manage the wilderness areas under the Natura 2000 network. As a result of the resolution, the Czech Presidency of the Council held a Presidency Conference on Wilderness and Large Natural Habitat Areas in Prague on May 2009. It resulted in Message from Prague, or An Agenda for Europe’s Wild Areas, which

176

aimed to concentrate on both wilderness and wild areas, providing possibly the first EU definition for both:

Wilderness is defined as a large area of terrestrial and/or marine natural habitat and ecological processes substantially unaltered by the hand of man. By contrast, wild areas refer often to smaller and often fragmented areas whose natural condition is either partially or substantially modified (European Union Presidency and the European Commission, 2009, p. 1).

The document acknowledges the ‘indirect and direct economic, health, social, research and cultural values’ of wilderness and wild areas (European Union Presidency and the European Commission, 2009, p. 1). It also acknowledges the need for a pan-European approach for wilderness areas protection, and notes that the N2K network offers a foundation on which to develop such an approach, also for non-member states. It calls for protection of wilderness to be more efficiently integrated to other policies, such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, energy, regional development, external relations and trade. It also requests completion of mapping wilderness and wild areas, and compilation of a register of wilderness using existing databases, as well as ‘[f]urther investigation into the scientific rationale underpinning the linkage between wilderness, wildlands and delivery of